Separating Genders

Go to page

Legendary Cat

To quote the unofficial Titanic wiki:Caledon Nathan Hockley, often shortened to Cal, (1882-1929) was Rose's fiancé and the main antagonist of the film Titanic. He was supposed to have married 17 year old socialite Rose DeWitt Bukater in an arranged ceremony when they arrived in Philadelphia, yet her hatred for him due to his sociopathic, misogynistic ways, and later her unexpected romance with Jack Dawson, kept them from forming an intimate bond.

17 year old, arranged marriage, sociopath misogynist. Yeah, women had it really good on the Titanic.

Actually, according to the official Rick and Morty wiki, men are the oppressed race

The female Gazorpians bring Rick and Summer to their underground matriachal utopia, bringing them before their leader Ma-Sha. Ma-Sha reveals that the female Gazorpians chose to separate themselves from the males. To continue their species they created the sex robots and separate the resulting babies by gender; the little girls are educated into their society while the children are evicted onto the planet's surface. When Summer exclaims about the infants being just children, Ma-Sha tells her that Gazorpian males mature within a day and become one of the most violent, aggressive species in the universe.

To quote the unofficial Titanic wiki:Caledon Nathan Hockley, often shortened to Cal, (1882-1929) was Rose's fiancé and the main antagonist of the film Titanic. He was supposed to have married 17 year old socialite Rose DeWitt Bukater in an arranged ceremony when they arrived in Philadelphia, yet her hatred for him due to his sociopathic, misogynistic ways, and later her unexpected romance with Jack Dawson, kept them from forming an intimate bond.

17 year old, arranged marriage, sociopath misogynist. Yeah, women had it really good on the Titanic.

I was talking about the fact that by far most survivors were women thanks to the rule that men should give their life for women if women need it. Back in those days it was "women and children first", just like it is now.

Women may have been considered to be less capable in general but their lives were considered to be more valuable than those of men in much the same way that little boys are seen as less capable but more valuable than adult men. Hence "women and children first".

So basically if you were a woman at the Titanic then this is how it would go: You sit there in your cozy safety boat while all those men are drowning in a seemingly endless ocean of kilometers deep ice cold water for your sake. You start complaining about how misoginistic those men are because they are only sacrificing themselves for your sake due to learned classism. Your feminist neighbor nods, pulls the scarf she got from a man that is now located about 200 meter below her a little tighter, and then mutters "misogynists" under her breath.

Ridley is in Smash

I knew it would go over your head but Oglemi's point is that women were never given a choice of lifeboat or water (again, did you not see the movie?). Just like how you don't give children choices. Women were on par with children. Just like how divorces are largely decided in women's favor by mostly male judges. You haven't given women more value, you've given them a singular, binding value. You are really just trying to say that women had it better when we forced them to stay in the kitchen. I didn't actually believe anyone would come into this thread and say such a thing, but you're remarkably close.

Hi all, I have never posted any of my views on these types of discussions before and I believe that any argument will always have holes poked in it, which is why this issue is being debated very fiercely at the moment, but here are my two cents because I have felt compelled to finally put my views into writing to address some of the things discussed in this thread.

To answer the OP, the gym is trying to make a decision that will increase its financial profit. This much is clear. The reason that this was put in place may be due to women not going to the gym due to harassment/staring from men, the gym sees that it is losing customers whilst not gaining any, and attempts to rectify this. For the gym, separation is the perfect way to combat the issue. The broader social issue of preventing harassment is not the gym’s responsibility to solve, they have decided to solve the issue at the gym because they were either losing money/not earning enough. Simple as that. I disagree that there is some sort of ‘deflection’ of the issue, because as far as I can see the gym has solved the issue within its premises, and isn’t able to do anything beyond that.

Personally, I have never been exposed to any of these issues. Call it a sheltered life or whatever, but I have never experienced any domestic violence, harassment, rape etc. and neither have my friends or family or for that matter anyone I know. I have grown up believing and assuming that men and women were equal and that everyone treats others how they would like to be treated. I have never discriminated against anyone based on their gender, race, disability, sexual orientation and I never will. Consequently, when these statistics about rape and the gender gap are discussed I’m always slightly puzzled as to why things aren’t equal. Everyone on both sides seem to be shouting constantly and are not sympathetic or understanding of the other side’s views. So, seeing as I’m sort of in my own little bubble of fairy-tale bliss and happiness where everything is equal, there is no way that I would be able to approach such a topic with the perspective of someone who has had to endure these types of things.

From my (male) perspective, it seems weird to see things like "teach men not to rape". Firstly, I think why would anyone do it in the first place? But obviously there is an issue, so I can understand that we need to stop this from happening, and one of the best ways is to go to the source of a problem. In this case though, a phrase like this appears to be painting all men as rapists, and that we need to be taught how to stop doing it. I do however understand that the intention isn’t to blame all men. It feels to me like when the couple of idiots who disrupt the classroom force the teacher to decide to give the whole class a detention. Was I doing anything wrong? No. Have I been penalised for doing nothing wrong? Yes. Has it made me feel angry at the teacher? You bet. Will it stop the actual idiots from doing it again? No. Hence, what seems to be a blanket statement appears to me to be counterproductive in the fight to reduce things like rape. I don’t need to be taught not to rape, because I’ve already had it drilled into me as a child that we treat others with respect and not to do drugs, alcohol, have underage sex, rape etc. All you are doing is creating enemies out of allies. This may also have something to do with the misconstrued societal notions of what feminism actually is when I hear "those feminists" being blamed – let me tell you that as a kid it’s a bit of a misleading term that you can’t fully understand anyway. Why can’t we all just get along with each other?

I like to look at all of this from a biological perspective. A species survives because it reproduces. It passes its DNA through generations, and mutations of genes can cause favourable or undesirable outcomes that affect a species ability to survive and reproduce. Our species, homo sapiens, has evolved to have a structure in which the strongest males compete for the most attractive (and fertile, the two are linked) females to pass on the best genes to ensure the survival of the species. Species in which the weak were passing on their genes would diminish their survival rates. Of course, biology isn’t just about strength. We also see size, appendages such as wings, night vision and other awesome features enhance survival rates, and thus these traits were passed on. Back to us. Males and females display sexual dimorphism, a result of differing selection pressures being applied to males and females. Think things like waist-to-hip ratio in females. And so, I would imagine that males have been in positions of power, as we would identify them as, merely due to superior height and strength. This has simply translated into a more structured society, and why we have problems that weren’t previously there.

Having explained that humans have sexual dimorphism, it isn’t a stretch to say that males and females are likely to have different approaches to our modern lifestyle. They are likely to think differently and not have identical goals in life. Does this explain the pay gap? I have no true understanding of how these statistics are determined, so I can’t comment. However, I would argue that it probably feels natural for some couples where the male provides for the female. Does this necessarily mean that these women are being systematically oppressed by a patriarchal society? I don’t think so, it might just be a bit of biology.

My other point I would make about biology is about altruistic behaviour. Our species has evolved this altruistic behaviour because it has increased our survival rate. A male will seek to protect females and children from harm in order to save future generations. If a male sacrifices his own life, he may have just produced many more lives that would otherwise not have existed due to those saved reproducing. The same instincts can be seen in females. Males are biologically programmed to feel the need to do this. In Titanic, they didn’t just jump in the water because they decided they were going to oppress women and not give them the choice of jumping in the water – therefore treating them on par with children. I feel that is a ridiculous statement to make. They do it because they feel an obligation to aid and protect them. How would you feel if we started telling children to jump into the water to save our own lives? That just doesn’t feel right.

Please take all that I have said with a grain of salt, and if you do feel the need to critique what I have said, by all means do. I have probably gone around in circles and been hypocritical. I’m happy to discuss in a polite manner what you may feel is wrong with my arguments. Remember that these are just my thoughts please. I didn’t set out to write an essay but I did.

to find better ways to say what nobody says

statistically, one of these identical men itt pleading that they never raped anyone (or even 'flirted with a girl') will or has already raped someone. the comparisons the above poster makes to behaviors like underage sex and alcohol use only make these pleas seem less and less credible when combined with some vague threat that telling men the truth about rape stats will cause them to act out even more lol. People (and these aren't feminists it's just everyone, including a lot of men, who don't have their heads up their butts) talking about teach men not to rape are fully aware that most men have already invested their 'allyship' in excusing the behaviors of their rap-ey male friends that they want to go the bar and frat party with.

Only someone who has not spent anytime hanging around men (i.e no one itt) would find any of the apologetics itt believable. Like the men itt cant even admit how much they would like to oggle women at the gym, or admit that they want to flirt with women lmao. the gymnastic performance of disavowal of desire by men itt is amazing me this morning.

the men in this thread are such unique special snowflakes when it comes to sexual assault, even as they boil down the dynamics of romance and flirtation into a competition between men to win women's wombs (since fertility and attractiveness are equated, the man is only interested in the woman's physical properties, as in the case of the rapist).

*memes* ( unclench your anus and take your head out of your butt)

what if

the belief that men don't have a special role to play in solving the problem of sexual violence (90% of which is done by men) actually contributed to the perpetuation of that sexual violence

anyway im feeling reassured that 4chan take downs of 'feminism' and evolutionary psychology (i.e that form of psychology solely meant to wonder if men raping women isn't the natural order after all, boys will be boys, it's just biology) have educated a generation of men on the internet that I can count on not do sexual violence to women.

to find better ways to say what nobody says

youre allowed to oggle and flirt, youre not allowed to rape. that i have to say this, that you will literally have learned from me saying this (if posts itt are to be taken srsly) explicitly, is sad as shit.

no one can stop you from looking, try not be creepy about it and make comments or cat calls, don't flirt too much with people who are working, for example waitresses.

im prepared to abandon speculating on the profit incentive of the gym because it seems to be reinforcing a notion that this is about men looking at women and not more serious things like covert harassment and stalking. this is, evidently, a problematic way of speculating mainly because it reinforces some idea in men's minds that they aren't supposed to look at or flirt with women and we all see where that goes (incels) when combined with an understanding of romance that pits men in a competition to win the wombs of women.

This is true and should definitely not be the case in today's society. However, the key word here would be statistically. Statistics can sometimes be misleading, and applying them to posters in a Pokemon forum in a discussion on gender probably won't be indicative of the population in general. I would doubt that someone in this thread has raped someone else. It is a two way street though, I would argue that the statistics on the number of women that have been raped is probably too low a figure due to a reluctance to admit they have been, and we shouldn't be living in a world where women have to be afraid of speaking out.

the comparisons the above poster makes to behaviors like underage sex and alcohol use only make these pleas seem less and less credible when combined with some vague threat that telling men the truth about rape stats will cause them to act out even more lol

How do my comparisons between being told not to rape, to being told not to engage in underage sex and alcohol, in any way make my or anyone else's claim that they have never raped anyone less credible? I believe that the point I am trying to make is that the education I received has made it pretty damn clear that rape isn't something you do, just like underage sex or alcohol, or anything else along those lines for that matter. So I feel that from my perspective, and I hope I outlined what perspective I'm coming from in my post above, is that I, personally, don't need someone to continually tell me that I shouldn't be raping other people because this has been instilled in me from a young age and is something I would never do. I also never say that rape stats will cause men to "act out", of which I'm not sure what you mean, so I don't think that was aimed at me.

People (and these aren't feminists it's just everyone, including a lot of men, who don't have their heads up their butts) talking about teach men not to rape are fully aware that most men have already invested their 'allyship' in excusing the behaviors of their rap-ey male friends that they want to go the bar and frat party with.

If this is the case, then it's news to me. I outlined above what sort of a perspective I'm speaking from, so I don't understand why other men would be 'allied' with their rap-ey male friends to excuse their behaviours. That just seems like a stupid thing to do. Of course, I'm not saying this is not the case, just that it's not my case.

Only someone who has not spent anytime hanging around men (i.e no one itt) would find any of the apologetics itt believable. Like the men itt cant even admit how much they would like to oggle women at the gym, or admit that they want to flirt with women lmao. the gymnastic performance of disavowal of desire by men itt is amazing me this morning.

As I say, I can't speak for anyone else, but staring and oggling at women is something that I've been told not to do, as it can make them feel uncomfortable. From what I'm being told, staring can count as harassment. So maybe this is why there seems to be a gymnastic performance of disavowal of desire, because it's these desires that can land us in hot water? I hope that can clarify some things for you.

the men in this thread are such unique special snowflakes when it comes to sexual assault, even as they boil down the dynamics of romance and flirtation into a competition between men to win women's wombs (since fertility and attractiveness are equated, the man is only interested in the woman's physical properties, as in the case of the rapist).

This is what I wanted to respond to the most. Maybe I seem like a 'unique special snowflake' because I have never experienced sexual assault, neither do I know anyone who has experienced sexual assault. Isn't that the kind of world we are looking to achieve? I believe you have misinterpreted my points on biology. I am not trying to "boil down the dynamics of romance and flirtation into a competition between men to win women's wombs". Wherever it is I said that, please quote me. I'm trying to convey that it may be possible that it's our millions and millions of years of evolutionary selection that has shaped humans the way they are today, and that this may be a reason for which we have problems like rape and a gender gap. I also state that fertility and attractiveness are linked, not equated. It's all about reproducing the fittest population possible, because it would have the highest chances of survival.

This is why I don't like internet debates, because suddenly I need to unclench my anus and take my head out of my butt, rather than being told to "hey, consider this point of view, hopefully you can understand where I am coming from". Of course men have a role to play in solving the problem of sexual violence. As you say, men are the perpetrators in 90% of cases. I won't be perpetuating sexual violence, because it's something I would never condone myself. I hope other men see it the same way as you and I.

I hope this all makes sense and you can see where I'm coming from. Remember that I'm just sharing my perspective.

This is just ironic and sensationalist drivel. On the contrary, nearly every discussion on gender dynamics I've ever seen on the internet almost invariably descends into a tirade attacking males for daring to speak out about the ways in which society is sexist towards them and how that ties in to the overall picture.

If lowering the incidence of any crime was as simple as just telling people not to do it, well shit, wouldn't that be nice. The problem is that it's nowhere near that simple, so to expect something as naive as that to solve everything is delusional. That doesn't neccessarily mean we shouldn't do that at all provided we go about it the right way, but the point is that the problem stems from much deeper origins, and unless those root causes themselves are addressed, you'll never even come close to eradicating the problem. There are many issues at play which contribute to the situation at hand:

- We need to stop defining a males worth based on how much sex he gets or his relationship status (ie, pressure to have a girlfriend or get married and start a family).
- We need to eliminate virgin shaming.
- We need to give boys and men freedom of expression with their appearance and emotions, which means stop treating them like soldiers where they all get given the same short haircut and have to conform to the same set of sexist societal norms.
- We need to stop mutilating the genitals of our baby boys; it's both a gross violation of their right to bodily autonomy, and conveys to them first hand that it's acceptable to forcefully exert control over other peoples bodies.
- We need to stop using words like "masculinity" and "femininity" because they are sexist terms which do nothing but reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes.
- We need to eliminate heteronormativity, so let our boys know that it's ok to form sexual and emotional relationships with people who aren't female.
- We need to eliminate gender roles such as men as instigators and women as selectors; encourage everyone to pursuit the person they want (if any).
- We need to take it seriously when boys and men voice themselves about the issues they face; we need to listen to them and stop dismissing them with the "man up" attitude.
- We need to use gender-neutral language when teaching our children about respecting the autonomy of others.
- We need to stop using violence as a means of disciplining our children.

Of course, most things on that incomplete list never even get a mention, mostly because society still hasn't matured to the point where it recognizes the existence of misandry. Given the above issues, is it really any wonder that we're in the mess we're in right now? We treat our boys like complete shit, suppress their individual development, and then expect each and every one of them to grow into decent adults. This isn't excusing the behaviour, there's never a valid excuse for it, but this is the reason it's happening. Rape culture is mostly a symptom of internalized misandry. When we tackle the above issues, the incidence of sexual assault will plummet, while simultaneously liberating boys, men, and women alike.

Over9000

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made on both sides. On one hand, widely creating spaces where groups are separated off or treated specially seems like it would antagonize any insufficiencies in coexistence and also just seems antithetical to the spirit of equal treatment. On the other hand, especially looking at sex, there are simple biological realities about the way human males and females work. While we are the most plastic and teachable of animals, there are still hard-wired realities that affect the way we think and act and if we don't respect our humanity we only trample on our own best interests.

The relationship between the sexes is incredibly complicated, and there is no rule of morality or biology that dictates absolute solutions for engagement. The specific cultural context, or even the specific community involved also has an influence on what people are comfortable with. To me, where something isn't tyrannical or obviously problematic discrimination or harm, we should let freedom and fitness guide the process. This seems like one that can be solved by the market, and probably will be solved by the market well. There will be gyms that do this, and gyms that don't-- maybe even in the same company-- and whether it results in more women (and/or more people in general) using the gym will be come apparent from data. This doesn't seem like an issue that would be problematic to simply allow the market decide.

im the best

i agree with teaching the childrens gender neutral principles, in w.e vague sense, but in most of the world that is failed on for most children before (and after) they get to a public classroom. children are as you said extremely sensitive to bias, and a significant bias is that which consists in prioritizing men over women or masculine achievement over feminine.

Oh, is that why girls are increasingly more and more successful in school as boys continue to fall even more behind? I'm guessing that's not what you were going for considering the fountain of misandry that is the rest of all your other posts in this topic.

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made on both sides. On one hand, widely creating spaces where groups are separated off or treated specially seems like it would antagonize any insufficiencies in coexistence and also just seems antithetical to the spirit of equal treatment. On the other hand, especially looking at sex, there are simple biological realities about the way human males and females work.

Incidentally, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has all but been branded unconstitutional by various Supreme Court rulings in the past 50+ years. Sometimes people need to be reminded that not everyone is actually equal though, or that equality of outcome is not the type of equality society should be pushing for.

to find better ways to say what nobody says

yeah i already addressed these points about boys and girls in education, w kilometerman, in the other thread you have replied to me in. it must be nice to ignore evidence as much as that dude used to, such as: given that men still make more money, it must not be education, where girls are achieving, that society places value on. This demonstrates my point, both in the other thread wrt pay gap, and in this thread where I discussed the prioritization and valorization of men's achievements at the expense of women. If women's achievements are so valuable why aren't they paid equally (just gonna go at this over and over, since your other post wrt me is literally 'watch me assert the wage gap doesnt exist for the thousandth time')?

im the best

The wage gap exists, to the point that the numbers are what they are, it's just small enough when controlling for non-gender factors that it's basically statistical noise and also completely fucking irrelevant to the 60-80% of people who live paycheck-to-paycheck. It's not an issue that most people actually care about and it's not a big enough issue where it does exist that it needs to be shouted from the mountaintops by women's rights advocates like it's the (second) biggest issue plaguing modern Western society. Constantly harping on it just pisses off those 40% of poverty-stricken men that feel like they're being attacked for no damn reason, because they are, and is not the way to elicit progress in society.

That you're now discounting the gender gap in education simply because "oh it doesn't matter, jobs do!" is... It speaks for itself. You're not interested in proper discourse, you're [mean word]. As I said in... I think the news topic anyway, it takes time. The education gap will, probably, eventually catch up to men in the job market. How about the fact that 90% of homeless people are male? Might that not partially be the result of schools failing to support young boys the way they do girls? What about the prison population being overwhelmingly male? Education is more than just learning how to get a job. School teaches important basic life skills and good educators can help prevent kids from falling into the dregs of society.

Banned deucer.

This is a valid point, though. The point of school, from an American view, is to get a job (or "be a productive member of society", if you prefer). You get a diploma that says you are qualified to do something, then you get a job. After you graduate, the education part is ultimately unimportant.

im the best

The point of a trade school specifically is to get a job. That is not the case of primary, secondary, and college/university education. You don't get a job by learning to count, that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, or taking hundreds of credit-hours of classes completely unrelated to your major.

Banned deucer.

The point of a trade school specifically is to get a job. That is not the case of primary, secondary, and college/university education. You don't get a job by learning to count, that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, or taking hundreds of credit-hours of classes completely unrelated to your major.

Some notable points, though the whole thing is a great read: a gap still exists after accounting for education and other variables. However, setting this aside, the larger gap that exists before accounting for those variables is absolutely of interest and may itself be influenced by discrimination. It's a common sneaky tactic to suggest that this larger gap is some fake exaggerated thing, like somehow we shouldn't care that women tend to make way less money overall for a variety of reasons. Of course we definitely should care about that.

As to the idea that 'pointing out the wage gap pisses off poor men,' well, I don't entirely doubt that. It seems conservatives have been pretty successful in indoctrinating young men into believing that women becoming more independent is somehow bad for men. I mean look at this thread, you have a bunch of kids who absolutely would never ever sexually assault someone ever, and that's a great thing. It's really too bad that they then feel attacked, somehow, by the idea that we as a society should continue to teach boys to understand and respect consent. I definitely know some guys who have never showed a hint of feeling threatened by that idea, but they seem to hang around very different areas of the internet than the ones I've encountered in a lot of gaming circles like this one.

What job do you think people are expecting to get when they go to college and enroll in a gender studies, arts, music, or other humanities course for example?

Colleges are now little more than profit-driven businesses who prey upon vulnerable young people who don't yet know anything about how the real world actually works. In most cases, attending one means wasting 3+ years of your life sitting in a lecture hall listening to some old fart regurgitate shit from a 10-year-old slide show and going into $50K+ worth of debt you have to pay interest on, all to obtain a stupid piece of paper that hasn't given you any meaningful skills or experience that are of any use to an employer. Colleges have also been overrun by radical leftist whackjobs who are indoctrinating the upcoming generation with feminist, socialist and other forms of propaganda. So when somebody says "women are more qualified than men and yet they are getting paid less", that's a really dumb statement because having a degree in itself doesn't mean shit, what matters is whether or not you have skills that are in demand, and when you choose to study a field that has poor employment prospects, that's on you.

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE

I’m curious to know OldM8 why you think that women have degrees in only humanities and not in the sciences? Also I’m curious to see how in demand you think the skills of a physics major is in comparison to a humanities major.

Women don't just have degrees in humanities, they have plenty in other fields such as health/science/law, but they certainly make up the largest portion of those obtaining degrees that have little or no economic value. The main reason for this is that the young people of today have been constantly fed the lie that in order to be successful and make it in the real world, you have to obtain a college degree. Therefore, you end up with a lot of young people wandering into college and studying something that merely interests them, rather than doing something that's actually setting them up for the future. It's only after graduation do they come to the crushing realization that the years they spent and the debt they went into has landed them working in a coffee shop. Their choice of field has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination; colleges are incredibly women-focused and practically every field where men outnumber women have programs that are designed to support and fast track them, and this is also true in the workplace, not just college campuses.

As for your other question, there's a myth that STEM subjects are a sure bet when choosing a line of study, but many of them suffer the same problem. A science degree with a physics major, for example, is also a really bad choice because you're only studying theoretical shit you can learn for free on the internet; you're not really acquiring any sort of training or experience that have any direct relevance to a job. I know because I've been there and learned the hard way. Sure, it's nice to know Newton's laws and thermodynamics, but once you get out in the real world, you're basically going to be starting from scratch and you'll be years behind your peers who got an internship or apprenticeship and already have a job and no giant debt to pay off.

Banned deucer.

TAMAGO

Women don't just have degrees in humanities, they have plenty in other fields such as health/science/law, but they certainly make up the largest portion of those obtaining degrees that have little or no economic value. The main reason for this is that the young people of today have been constantly fed the lie that in order to be successful and make it in the real world, you have to obtain a college degree. Therefore, you end up with a lot of young people wandering into college and studying something that merely interests them, rather than doing something that's actually setting them up for the future. It's only after graduation do they come to the crushing realization that the years they spent and the debt they went into has landed them working in a coffee shop.

so typically women work more hours at the same job title to earn less money, and then go home to do extra house work and possibly child rearing, but this dude's response is just going on and on about irrelevant differences in education choices. it doesnt matter if it's stem and a fancy job or humanities and the coffee shop, men are favored in employment at every level. go ahead and talk more about how women choose to make less money by majoring in humanities: it doesn't change the fact that if they majored in stem, they would still make less money for their work than a man.

this is the same level of irrelevancy as you, oldm8, quoting statistics on single parent violence and comparing them to men and sexual assault.

so typically women work more hours at the same job title to earn less money, and then go home to do extra house work and possibly child rearing, but this dude's response is just going on and on about irrelevant differences in education choices. it doesnt matter if it's stem and a fancy job or humanities and the coffee shop, men are favored in employment at every level. go ahead and talk more about how women choose to make less money by majoring in humanities: it doesn't change the fact that if they majored in stem, they would still make less money for their work than a man.

So you're saying that if you have a man and a woman that work for the same company, in the same position, with the same amount of experience, and for the same number of hours, the man will make more than the woman almost every time? What types of jobs do you claim are affected by this? What percentage of jobs are affected by it? If you and I both work at the same coffee shop for same number of hours, will I take home a bigger cheque than you? Last I checked, companies didn't have a "female wage" and a "male wage", because it's illegal under the equal pay act. The only kinds of jobs that can possibly be affected here are ones where there is no set pay, ie. where a salary is negotiated, and those comprise a pretty small percentage of overall jobs, and they tend to be high-paying as well, so if it really is a thing, aren't we mostly squabbling over whether those in the "top 1%" deserve to take home $280K vs $300K a year or something along those petty lines? And I don't get why if women get paid less for doing the exact same work across the board, wouldn't employers cotton on to that and exclusively hire them to save money? Why not replace as many men as you can and get a bigger bang for your buck?